Calling these folk Celts would be quite a stretch, and we can safely say they weren't Jesuits. Victor Mair has researched and written extensively on the mummies. He is a highly respected scholar, but many people think he pushes his linguistics connections theories a bit far. Interesting, though!

Louis is quite correct, I wasn't saying that the Tocharians were Celts by any means, just that they spoke an early "pre-satem" Indo-European dialect that had a lot in common with what we may call "Proto-Celtic" (also pre-satem). At the Neolithic stage of the initial Tocharian migrations, neither the ancestors of the Tocharians or the Celts would have been speaking languages recognized as such, the couple of thousand years separating the Neolithic from the Iron age is a long time, in which significant differentiation will occur. Tocharian shows affinities for the Anatolian languages as well, Hittite and Luwian, also the descendants of very early migrations from the IE homeland (wherever that is!)

Also, I would be hesitant to ascribe a large influence on Chinese culture by the Tocharians. There may have been some by trade diffusion via the silk road, but the distances involved are still considerable.

It is not true that I did not have any idea as to your personal opinion or intent on this subject. As you said you have had "35 years" invested in the "I-Ching". Rutt tells you that those 35 years were somewhat "misdirected". I know that you get a lot of meaning from it and it is a "force" to some degree in your life--in the way of explantion of phenomena or taiji principles,.... I may overstate this, and I apologize as we have not had a discussion on the subject and I would be willing to do so at some time. But it is because of this that I deleted my earlier post.

I at times enjoy a text called the Hua Hu Ching. Some like to say it was by some dude called Laozi. The basic framework of the text and most of the early material in it is probably from a "Daoist" text. BUT all through it and especially towards the end, there are decidedly BUddhist additions and slants.

As I said in my post that I deleted, "change" is the nature of things, with additions and subtractions over time to fit the needs and viewpoint of the readers. I would not hesitate to say that ALL texts from all cultures undergo this same process. This does negate the value, but in my way of thinking enriches it on a number of levels. I look at the I-ching as an expression of the culture and that is all. If you find value in that which I do not see, embrace it, enjoy it as it came down to you. It went through a series of "changes" to reach that point. Count on it. THat is the nature of things--and that we cannot "change". There really is nothing to argue. I remember the Buddha telling his followers NOT to turn his philosophy into a religion---guess what?

I guess I better give it up, since what I was arguing for was an open mind.

Basically there was no new information in Rutt's book for me about the I Ching as a whole. By this I mean that his "take" on it was not new to me.

Among my objections to Rutt's book was his misportrayal of the Wilhelm/Baynes translation, and his jumping to conclusions. I don't like that it is assumed that I have to have a degree in ancient Chinese thought and language before I am allowed to point out errors in logic.

Yet even where I agree with Rutt it goes unacknowledged. For example: Richard Rutt points out, in relation to King Wen's mention in the Ten Wings, that one of the features of ancient cultures is talking an old bit of literature or invention and giving the present ruler credit for it. Yet when I say that there are indications that there was an earlier version of the Ten Wings I get jumped on for inaccuracy.

My questions are good ones, they are logical and within the framework of the present scholarship, but it really doesn't matter. I raised a bunch of questions and as far as I can see the door is closed to me, and this is a depressing state of affairs.

Thanks for you response. I find the I Ching to be an interesting bit of history. One which can come in many forms and be used many ways.

Firstly...I'd like to agree at the potential value of the I-Ching...Quite the multi-faceted tool, from what I have gleaned of it so far.

I feel your frustration and wish I could help with your questions...But I know naught of Rutt or his works.

There are many questions asked on this board and not all produce answers...For whatever reasons...

Just a handfull of flawed human beings here-as everywhere. (no offense to all those flawed human beings out there).

Including varying developing girths of mind set, different perspectives, different opinions...

Some opinions could/should/might be delivered more delicately...as they ARE only opinions...Especially those opinions including judgements of a persons being and his qualifications or aptitudes...Personal judgements as it were.

Anyways, David, why worry if someone disgrees with what you state...or even if they refuse to even listen...The answers will surely find their way to you if you are seeking them.